I am not sure if you object to something in the patch or not.
If not, then why is it not looking good? Or maybe I am not clear enough in
my
design?
https://codereview.chromium.org/867153003/diff/40001/src/preparser.h
File src/preparser.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/867153003/diff/40001/src/preparser.h#newcode2132
src/preparser.h:2132: kind = has_extends ?
FunctionKind::kSubclassConstructor
On 2015/01/23 21:37:00, arv wrote:
Sad. This needs to be dynamic since an extends value of null needs to
be treated
as if no extends clause was present :'(
That is fine. FunctionKind::kSubclassConstructor means in fact "maybe
subclass constructor" (conditioned on whether the actual extends value
is null or not).
The key thing to achieve here is that we separate out the case where
'extends' is syntactically not present - in that case the receiver is
definitely never a hole, we definitely need no checks on 'this', we
definitely cannot use 'super' etc.
https://codereview.chromium.org/867153003/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
